MAB

Of course, if there is one. A lot of things appeared to sell poorly 10 years ago. Aside from Orthanc, I was able to purchase every LOTR and Hobbit set at at least 30% off, commonly 50% off and for some sets just over 60% off. Most of my series 1 to 10 CMF were bought for about £1.20 when released due to common discounts although I used to buy up boxes at clearance for 50p a figure at the end of their run. I think part of the reason for weaker sales of Simpsons S2 was the choice of characters and people realising they were not going to do important characters. And partly due to lower numbers of collectors at the time. Harry Potter sets were also really heavily discounted in 2011/12 but LEGO brought that theme back to obvious success. Café Corner and Emerald Night were also discounted suggesting they weren't selling well at the end of their shelf time. A lot has changed in 10 years. Minifig collecting is more popular. LEGO is more popular. Adults are more likely to sets and minifigs for themselves. I rarely see heavily discounted LEGO or CMF these days when 10 years ago it was common. I don't think poor sales then correlate with what would happen now.

If he is the only one, I'd skip it. Sideshow Bob and/or Mel, then I'd buy just the minifigs on BL. I think the only way I'd buy into The Simpsons sets again is if they did Moe, Barney, Skinner etc in an early new set. If they aren't going to do characters I like and I have all the originals, I'll stick with what I have.

I don't think so. Usually when these offers go out of stock, that is it. But it might be different for sets compared to the coins, keychains, etc.

Using the same moulds or same shaped heads if they need new moulds is fine for the same characters. They were good the first time. But if there are no new characters, then I'm out already. Hopefully it causes some new interest in LEGO Simpsons as I still have loads of the two previous CMF series to sell on.

Buy when there is a good GWP from LEGO or when there is a good discount from another retailer if it is not an exclusive. If you don't buy often, then I wouldn't prioritise getting Insiders points, as you have to place further orders to use them.

You'll be surprised. It depends on what the adverts are, but I recently saw a video of someone saying that they got about $800 for per 100,000 views, so that would be $8 per 1000 views. I can understand it if they are getting paid or even in the case of a product, as a pseudo-validation that their decision to spend their money a certain brand was the right one and everyone else is wrong. But when it comes to free content, it costs nothing to watch creator A and creator B aside from time. Personally, when I watch videos I do it with an adblocker, and watch at double speed so I doubt creators like my viewing stats as they don't get the watchtime on the video or any ads delivered. Even for people I watch a lot, I am not going to watch adverts just to make them money.

LEGO doesn't need to make those c-list characters if your customs are good enough for b-list, just make custom versions of those too.

My daughter had a couple of Elves dragons and they got played with a lot. They are very cartoony, too cutesy for Castle, but they fit perfectly with the Elves style. I think they held together pretty well even during heavy play with all their flying around her bedroom.

The head and jaw maybe, but the rest of the body (without the printing) is pretty generic and as it is buildable, they could easily swap out some parts such as the spiked neck for a smooth neck. Some of the parts have been used in other themes. Although even a green version of the non-IP Kingdoms dragon would be nice. They almost got there in the troll ships years ago.

Even sweeter as by reviewing it, you get another 100 euros or whatever from youtube for that video if you have enough clicks. There is little wonder content creators are protective of their accounts and asking for subscribers and continually feed the youtube algorithm whether they have something new or useful to say, or just recycle ideas from the past. On the other hand, I find it strange and actually a little creepy that followers become so defensive of their favourite content creators, and also so aggressive towards rival content creators, like they owe a debt to their idols and have to help "support the channel".

For you (and me) building may be the main step, but look at how many kids (and adults) these days build their LEGO once then keep it as a set and not use the building aspect again. As to scale, they are similar in that they are small handheld dolls that are played with in a similar way. Most toys are role playing or story telling but the style of play is different depending on their size. A lego minifigure holding a sword (or proton pack) is very similar to a playmobil doll holding a sword (or proton pack) and the play style is similar. Whereas a child holding a life-sized sword (or proton pack) will play with that toy in a very different way even if they are basing play on the same storyline. The latter is also more immersive in that the child is the character, whereas when using dolls they are outside of the play even if they project their feelings onto the doll. So I'd say LEGO and Playmobil have much more in common than a toy from the same franchise made at life size.

There are good reasons to have a CMF series alongside a large set, and there are good reasons not to have a CMF series alongside a large set. So there might be a CMF series, but then also there might not be a CMF series.

Same here. Modern dragons are much more impressive and are actually building toys, unlike the little dragons. They are typically the star of their set. If LEGO make new moulds for dragons that are smoother looking, I think I'd prefer Kingdoms style or Smaug style molded parts that are build into the dragon so it is still built and posable, with an impressive size.

For me, so long as they buy some of their own LEGO and have some realistic view of value, then they can still discuss value for money even if they are reviewing a sponsored set. They can still compare part counts, sizes, build times, build fun, etc, across similar priced sets in different themes, or similar products if reviewing non -LEGO products.

I don't think it can be both (i) taking only a product and not money and (ii) needing sponsored content to make ends meet. Personally, I don't care if someone gets a free product if they review it honestly and there is no deal for further products if they give a positive review. I think a viewer can normally tell if a reviewer is enhancing the positives and ignoring the negatives. And if they do that, then the reviewer loses all credibility. If they get paid to review it, chances are their review is going to be biased as it becomes more of an advert than a review. I think youtube has turned though in that now there are plenty of negative posters, calling out others either in comments or in their own videos about wrongdoing including if that is doing reviews for money.

Yes. And now, probably more than ever as LEGO has become less of a building toy for many. Look at how many sets are built once then displayed or played with, but never mixed up with other parts or rebuilt as something else or even rebuilt at all. They are both role playing type toys, with the difference that with LEGO you get the extra step of building it first. Role playing with a LEGO car once it is built is not that different to role playing with a Matchbox or Hotwheels car. Replace car with any object.

Third party movable short legs have been available for ages, such as those by Brick Fortress. However they don't look right when posed, especially when in the sitting position.

I don't mind sponsored reviews, so long as they are honest reviews. If a reviewer gives positive reviews for a poor product just so they get more products from that company in future, it reflects badly on them. People will call them out for doing so in comments too.

LEGO don't do sets for boys and sets for girls though. They say as much implicitly and sometimes explicitly in their advertising. I noticed a few months ago that they even removed gender from the gift finder on their website. They also have minidolls in franchises that might be of interest to boys, like Wicked, and Gabby's Dollhouse for younger kids. If they thought they would hit the demographic they are aiming at better with minidolls, they'd do it. Especially if they do small molded dragons, then the proportions of minidolls might work better in looking realistic than minifigs.

I imagine they would aim a How To Train Your Dragon theme at all children, rather than being a "boy theme". Both genders enjoy the movies. I can't see the dragons being much use for Castle, as they are a very specific look for the movies. And if they use more generic dragons then they won't look very much like the movies.

That is kind of my point though. Are they made for kids today or reminiscent adults? If it is kids of today then why aren't there more modern (female) characters in the series? The ones they included are very nostalgic and recognizable for people that watched the originals. If they were after the people watching the new cartoons now, why was Lola the only new character and even she is relatively old compared to those new characters of the reboot about 10 years ago.

That was essentially the storyline of Chima, tribes fighting over the mystical chi. I doubt LEGO would do fighting over food or similar, especially if it was a kids range. It is easier to do a few factions and the consumer decides if they are fighting and why, or if there is a reason, then have a fantasty resource not linked to real world struggles.

Even if they were to do a series of 12, your top row minus Otto and Lovejoy would be pretty much perfect, leaving six slots for repeats of Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa and Maggie plus a free slot. Maybe another Krusty to go with Sideshow Bob for those that didn't collect first time around. That top row would have been preferable to most of Series 2.

There probably isn't a single license for their toy movie tie-ins. LEGO and Playmobil have had sets from the same franchise on shelves at the same time in the past. For example, both had a Ghostbusters Firehouse HQ available at the same time.

The point is for CMF sales to be good, LEGO (and retail stores) need more than a legion of fans of a franchise to buy them. They have to appeal to general buyers who might know of the characters and pick up a few, even if they are not part of a legion of fans devoted to the franchise. The "minor characters" was aimed more at Petunia Pig than Lola. Lola wasn't a minor character, she didn't exist. I haven't seen any of the modern cartoons, so for me Petunia Pig is the minor sidekick to Porky Pig. If there are more female characters in the franchise in modern cartoons, and this series was aimed at kids of today, I am a little surprised that they did not include more females in the series matching the modern line up. Aside from Lola, the roster is very reminiscent of cartoons shown 50+ years ago.